Sorry Mike, should have looked up!

On China's behalf, besides all that we buy -- because we don't make much here anymore, and apparently can't do it as cheaply -- haven't our corporations moved the environmentally-dirtiest jobs over there?  

If we're going to lead, we should also expect our corporations to clean up their acts when they ship their polluting manufacturing jobs overseas.

I would rather pay more for a green made, American made product than one built in a plant that poisoned the earth. I also believe if We cutoff the competition the American companies would survive with the higher prices They could charge. I know higher prices do not sound attractive, but with American money set for a nose dive under this admin. anyway, prices are set to skyrocket.

As long as we can get a reasonable estimate of CO2 output, and as long as the people on this planet stay focused on the problem, there is going to be pressure from all sides to reign in greenhouse gas emissions. Already China and India are aware of the threats to their nations from global climate change (GCC), and the threats to those nations are great. If they see us taking the lead, it will be very hard for them not to follow. There is a moral side to this, also. If someone were standing at the side of the road with a chained bear, handing out five dollar bills to anyone who passed by who would hit the bear with a baseball bat, what would you do? Would it depend on how rich our poor you were? And what if you found yourself up there with all the bear beaters, and you started discussing among yourselves how stupid you felt, but everyone needed the money. Suddenly, some says, "I'll stop if you stop!" Think about this. There is little question as to your reaction.The right thing to do morally is to lower our output of CO2 now to address GCC. We are the richest country that ever existed on the face of the earth. We can do this and still remain a strong nation, because our greatness has always rested more on our principles and on our people than on our wealth.There are instances in recent history where America could have reacted in a way that would have saved lives, but we did not. This affects the way America is viewed around the world. It is now time to take the high road on this issue because we have dragged our feet for far too long. We stand to lose enormous credibility with other nations if we do not act now, and more lost credibility is something America can no longer afford. 

Much of what we have read about climate change is bogus, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which is  primitive at best. Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations' peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission recently that some of its computers models were wrong.)

Noted Australian geologist Ian Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia's water debate - but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. "It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age."

If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time.

What follows is an intense compression of his book's 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Here's what Wikipedia says about Ian Plimer:
"Plimer is also critical of what he sees as irrational elements within the environmental movement. He is critical of greenhouse gas politics and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book in which he claims that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, rather than factoring other issues such as solar variation."
Plimer also states that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges. This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean."

Ian Plimer has come up with more than one argument that is on the fringe of what scientists generally believe. As with El Niño, he's not saying that global climate change isn't happening - he's saying that it is not human caused. Peer reviewed science states that GCC is happening, a major cause of it is human activity, and that activity is primarily the release of greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2.
There are always those scientist who will disagree with mainstream science. There are a number of scientists who disagree with evolution (Ian Plimer is not one of them). It only counts (in science) when the person with the contrary view can convince other scientists, through the collection of good data, the analysis of good data with good logic, or the repeatable performance of conclusive experiments that he may be correct. Ian Plimer has yet to do that.  

I totally agree. We're the most responsible for this calamity and we need to own up to that and start acting responsibly.
I hope you will support my petition to restore solar panels to the White House.
Jimmy Carter tried to make Americans leaders in sustainable energy by putting solar panels on the White House. Instead, his efforts were scorned and one of Ronald Reagan's first acts as President was to remove the solar panels because "America didn't conserve its way into greatness."
I think that's backwards. Wastefulness is NOT a path to greatness, but leadership in conservation could be a real path to greatness.

Great Article!  We need some planning and some doing too, right away!  A challenge is good for you...

I want to motivate individuals to change now, to use what they know and care about to think about better transportation options and food choices, then energy savings at home and work, and all with an eye to future.  Can you change for better?  Lets talk about the best ways to do it:  Join me on http://unpollute.ning.com Thanks.

Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis. Because of low current atmospheric concentration, carbon dioxide is practically the limiting factor of the Earth life, as compare to two other similarly important components - water and sun light. While plants "in wild" are optimized for this, plant-intense greenhouses may (and of large size - must) enrich their atmospheres with additional CO2 to sustain plant life and growth, because the low present-day atmosphere concentration of CO2 is just above the "suffocation" level for green plants. A photosynthesis-related drop (by a factor less than two) in carbon dioxide concentration in a greenhouse compartment would kill green plants, or, at least, completely stop their growth. At very high concentrations (a factor of =>100 than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life, so raising the concentration to 10,000 ppm (1%) or higher for several hours will eliminate pests such as whiteflies and spider mites in a greenhouse.

It has been proposed that carbon dioxide from power generation be bubbled into ponds to grow algae that could then be converted into biodiesel fuel. Carbon dioxide is already increasingly used in greenhouses as the main carbon source for Spirulina algae. In medicine, up to 5% carbon dioxide (factor 150 as compare to atmospheric concentration) is added to pure oxygen for stimulation of breathing after apnea and to stabilize the O2/CO2 balance in blood.